The Weekly Standard reserves the right to use your email for internal use only. Occasionally,
we may send you special offers or communications from carefully selected advertisers we believe may be of benefit to our subscribers.
Click the box to be included in these third party offers. We respect your privacy and will never rent or sell your email.

Please include me in third party offers.

On Saturday, Max Boot wrote in the LA Times that we're now hearing many of the critics of the Iraq war apply the same arguments for withdrawal--it's a quagmire; democracy won't work; more troops won't help, etc.--to Afghanistan. On Sunday, Richard C. Holbrooke, the State Department's envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, seemed to advance the 'we can't win in Afghanistan' narrative, saying at the Munich Security Conference that the situation in Afghanistan is "much tougher than Iraq." Jules Crittenden points out that two years ago Holbrooke said that the situation in Iraq was "worse than it ever was in Vietnam."

"You know, if someone would just point that out to the Euros, they might be more enthusiastic about pitching in," writes Crittenden. "'Afghanistan's worse than Iraq, which was worse than Vietnam! Should be done by Christmas!'"

At the very least, it seems that some in the Obama administration are trying to lower expectations, if not pave the way for a withdrawal. Over at National Review Online, Frederick Kagan argues against the temptation to cut and run and identifies the principles that should guide the right approach to Afghanistan.